Talk:Screenshot tips
":you get this effect by using a image with a transparent background, double it’s size and place it in a div with sky-colored background: : : the image “Earth magic.png” is 24 pixel wide, has a black shadow with 50% transparency and looks with everything set up like above like this: : :the object-template already has the background color." *This is unnecessary trouble and not good standardization. Simply take the in-game screenshot against the bluish background of the beach title level and resize that shot to 2x (in paint, for example). You insert it into the page at full-size so as to maintain quality. This is already mentioned in the article.--Hawkian 21:09, September 23, 2009 (UTC) *i’m sorry, but i think it’s good like this. in this way you can place them in-line, change the background-color at will and you only need one minute per picture to edit it. :please try it, it’s a good convention. – Flying-sheep 21:14, September 23, 2009 (UTC) ::I'm not sure what you mean by placing them in-line. All images can be formatted by the wiki, regardless of whether or not they are wrapped in a div. Being able to change the background color is not a benefit- all infobox images should ideally use the same color. For action shots, you can take them in whatever location or backdrop you want of course. Also, one minute per picture to edit is a lot longer than the 10 seconds it takes to snap a shot, crop, and resize 200% in paint.--Hawkian 21:17, September 23, 2009 (UTC) :::let’s talk in the shoutbox. :::i mean: if we don’t like the blue, we can change the background color of the template instead of editing hundreds of images. :::leaving images at standard size and magnifying them in the code is always a good idea, trust me, i’m a webdesigner and for quite a time active at wikipedia and some game-wikis ;) :::– Flying-sheep 21:23, September 23, 2009 (UTC) :::PS: placing them in-line like this image:Earth magic.pngEarth Magic is a good way to link them, don’t you think ::::I think that having a secondary image with a transparent background for inline link usage such as that would be fine. I don't think it's a good idea to do that EVERY time we link, but for uses like that it is fine. Again, you can upload your shots this way if you'd like, but as it stands I am not going to make this policy. --Hawkian 21:33, September 23, 2009 (UTC) :::::you can’t make policies, they form. you may be the founder of this wiki, but it’s a wiki. everyone can edit it and it’s democratic – Flying-sheep 22:09, September 23, 2009 (UTC) *I don't think you are taking the right approach here. # Policies don't just "form." Conventions may form and be adopted as policies, or overturned in favor of policy or new conventions that take their place which in turn may or may not become policy. # I, and others, can actually make policies. These people are called administrators. There are a small group of us and to varying degrees we have all made policies, from using the different templates to formatting the level page names. If you change or edit one of these areas on your own, you are subverting policy and it will most likely be quickly reverted. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't make all the edits and changes and bold experiments you like, just that they might not necessarily be accepted, at least not immediately. # Toward the notion that wikis are democratic... Wikipedia, surely the largely wiki in the world with the most "anyones" as in the phrase "anyone can edit," has this to say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy :Debate is important, and consensus is a great way to arrive at policy. But it is not a substitute for the processes in place. I hope that this does not strike you as a fascist state- it is a collaborative effort that is guided and assisted by a small group. :I'd be happy to explain more or address any other concerns you have, just leave a message on my talk page. --Hawkian 23:18, September 23, 2009 (UTC) ::you know that this wikipedia-is-not-a-democracy-page is hairsplitting? in fact it only says that wikipedia has no political intents and does not use voting as main intrument to achieve consensus. you see by the example of Conservapedia that indeed the wiki-style-democracy can turn into a facist dictatorship… ::– Flying-sheep 10:50, September 24, 2009 (UTC) ::PS: and i think we will get along well ;) :::I tend to use Wikipedia as my guide in all things wiki, and I don't think the concept is splitting hairs; from that link: "(The wiki's) primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting." I'm not sure which way you were using Conservapedia to make a point, but that site is run by a bunch of people who think the earth is 6,000 years old at most. There can be no rational debate within such a group :P --Hawkian 13:05, September 24, 2009 (UTC)